Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Keithdwat579
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Niue

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Keithdwat579 »

I would consider that more of a cruiser, I believe thats what the USN is calling it, its so big, its definitely meant to be more of a ticonderoga rival that a T45/Arleigh Burke rival. This is more proof of Chinas ambitions, the question is though, is the RN properly preparing itself for more time in the Pacific? Also is there a need for the RN or the UK to get properly involved in the Far East? Are they a threat to the UK at all? Are they a threat to anyone?
I do believe that this is a 'tread carefully but carry a big stick' scenario. We have to know what we are doing and know how much we are getting involved.

Online
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Keithdwat579 wrote:I would consider that more of a cruiser, I believe thats what the USN is calling it, its so big, its definitely meant to more of a ticonderoga rival that a T45/Arleigh Burke rival. This is more proof of Chinas ambitions, the question is though, is the RN properly preparing itself for more time in the Pacific? Also is there a need for the RN or the UK to get properly involved in the Far East? Are they a threat to the UK at all? Are they a threat to anyone?
I do believe that this is a 'tread carefully but carry a big stick' scenario. We have to know what we are doing and know how much we are getting involved.
Not surprised that USN calling the new Chinese Type 055 a cruiser, though they classify the white elephant Zumwalt three class ships, 16,000t FLD/186m as destroyers.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Halidon »

Size is not the sole reason for calling 055 a Cruiser, and the 1000 doesn't really fill any of the "cruiser" roles.

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

Bae the Clyde please note:

In March 2018, six Type 055s were under construction simultaneously

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by AndyC »

To save on costs for the Type 31e it seems to be accepted that as much equipment as possible will need to be passed on from the retiring Type 23 frigates – including Artisan radar, 4.5 inch gun, 48 Sea Ceptor SAM launchers and eight Harpoon anti-shipping missile launchers.

So, if there's room, my preference would be for four 3-cell ExLS launchers instead instead of a Mk 41 VLS silo. This could have six quad packed launchers for Sea Ceptor-ER area air defence missiles and six for VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles giving the Type 31e a very good AAW defence and fairly reasonable ASuW and ASW.

And, if the MoD wants to cheat a bit on the finances why not place an order for a further four 3-cell ExLS launchers for each Type 45 as well? Six could be allocated for quad packed Sea Ceptor short-range SAM, to complement the longer range Sea Viper, and six for VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles.

Then the whole order for 44 3-cell ExLS launchers plus additional Sea Ceptor, Sea Ceptor-ER and VL-ASROC missiles can be taken out of the Type 31e budget and moved to the Complex Weapons budget.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

AndyC wrote:So, if there's room, my preference would be for four 3-cell ExLS launchers instead instead of a Mk 41 VLS silo. This could have six quad packed launchers for Sea Ceptor-ER area air defence missiles and six for VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles giving the Type 31e a very good AAW defence and fairly reasonable ASuW and ASW.
You're not going to be able to launch VL-ASROC from ExLS.

ExLS is not a replacement for Mk.41. It's also not necessary for launching Sea Ceptor. All it is is a frame that sits within a Mk.41 launcher to enable a different range of munitions to be compatible. As a standalone launcher it would only be compatible with soft launch (which rules out VL-ASROC) as it does not have all of the channels for dealing with hot gas and flame that Mk.41 has.

Basically unless you're putting ExLS inside a Mk.41 there is zero point to it.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Timmymagic wrote:
AndyC wrote:So, if there's room, my preference would be for four 3-cell ExLS launchers instead instead of a Mk 41 VLS silo. This could have six quad packed launchers for Sea Ceptor-ER area air defence missiles and six for VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles giving the Type 31e a very good AAW defence and fairly reasonable ASuW and ASW.
You're not going to be able to launch VL-ASROC from ExLS.

ExLS is not a replacement for Mk.41. It's also not necessary for launching Sea Ceptor. All it is is a frame that sits within a Mk.41 launcher to enable a different range of munitions to be compatible. As a standalone launcher it would only be compatible with soft launch (which rules out VL-ASROC) as it does not have all of the channels for dealing with hot gas and flame that Mk.41 has.

Basically unless you're putting ExLS inside a Mk.41 there is zero point to it.
If that's true then why is there a stand alone ExcL unit ? From what I've read it is more densely packed than even than land Cepter lurchers

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by AndyC »

From Lockheed Martin's website https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... tions.html

"ExLS also comes in a standalone variant that enables a ship to launch missiles or munitions regardless of whether or not it is equipped with a VLS."

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

VL-ASROC needs full width Mk.41 VLS. Not compatible with any quad-pack system, including ExLS adaptor.
Also, independent ExLS has similar dimensions, so surely not capable of carrying VL-ASROC.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Types.gif

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The T-31e is going to be lucky to get twelve "Mushroom" Sea Ceptor launchers if it gats any missile AD system. It will not get one or more MK41s and nor will to ever get VL-ASROC. Yes this has been mentioned in the Fantasy thread but it is just that. I also seriously doubt it will get the Harpoons off the T-23s, these will be basically lie Ex by the time the T-31s hit the water. Artisan may be, but the Mk8 is of little use rather than trying to make the T-31 look more like a Frigate, and actually detracts form the roles it should be doing. The T-31e is a political programme to try to fend of those who support a strong military in and out of Government, and would kick up one hell of a storm in the media if the RN had its escort force cut by five vessels. The fact that it actually is, shows that the Governments "Spin" machine is still working well.

Regarding the three cell stand alone ExLS, it can also act as a ships decoy launchers so installing it saves the cost of installing dedicated launchers for the latter. ExLS is also far more compact than the existing "Mushroom" launchers, has been fully cleared for use with Sea Ceptor. Installing an additional standard length MK41 on the T-26 would negate the need to have the "Mushroom" launchers fitted amidships and bring the UK design more in line with the Australian version. It also frees up space amidships for other uses. In fact we should be aligning the design of the City class as close as possible to the Hunter class in my opinion.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:Regarding the three cell stand alone ExLS, it can also act as a ships decoy launchers so installing it saves the cost of installing dedicated launchers for the latter.
Unless it's launching Nulka, which manoeuvres itself, (which the RN doesn't use) that's not going to be much use at all. The net effect would be projecting a countermeasure directly over the ship, which kind of defeats the objective...

Besides the RN has loads of Sea Gnat from other vessels.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

That's complicating thing's only for the sake of complicating things. Decoys, just like CIWS, should be independent of other systems.
@LandSharkUK

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Simon82 »

I always assumed that the ‘mushroom’ launch silos for CAMM were merely a quick fix method to adapt the existing Type 23 Seawolf VLS, a bit like the insert ExLS system allows a self-defence Mk-41 VLS to be converted easily from legacy Sea Sparrow to CAMM. This explains the low packing density on the Type-23 as it leaves the space formerly occupied by the plenum for containing and venting the hot-launch exhaust around each launch silo vacant.
What is baffling me is why this system would be ported over to a new build vessel, like the Type 26 or 31e. It negates the increased packing density and/or smaller deck footprint advantage that cold-launch gives, as exemplified by Land Ceptor or the stand-alone ExLS system. Of course this might be explained if an integral part of the new CAMM ‘mushrooms’ on the Type 26 is the new-build Seawolf VLS frames that hold them upright! ;)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Simon82 wrote:I always assumed that the ‘mushroom’ launch silos for CAMM were merely a quick fix method to adapt the existing Type 23 Seawolf VLS, a bit like the insert ExLS system allows a self-defence Mk-41 VLS to be converted easily from legacy Sea Sparrow to CAMM. This explains the low packing density on the Type-23 as it leaves the space formerly occupied by the plenum for containing and venting the hot-launch exhaust around each launch silo vacant.
What is baffling me is why this system would be ported over to a new build vessel, like the Type 26 or 31e. It negates the increased packing density and/or smaller deck footprint advantage that cold-launch gives, as exemplified by Land Ceptor or the stand-alone ExLS system. Of course this might be explained if an integral part of the new CAMM ‘mushrooms’ on the Type 26 is the new-build Seawolf VLS frames that hold them upright! ;)
I think we're all puzzled.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by whitelancer »

Ron5 wrote:I think we're all puzzled.
To true. Frankly it seems to make no sense what so ever.

Another puzzling feature, if you look at the videos of the test firings you will see that the head of the "mushrooms" is absent from the launch tubes used. Does this mean that when missiles are present that they aren't fitted (in which case why are they depicted in all the CGI images of T26 and T31?) or are they just removed before firing, in which case how are they removed? As they appear to be bolted on I can't imagine some poor sailor having to remove them with a spanner, yet their seems no other way of doing it! Its all very baffling.

Online
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

RIMPAC Jul/Aug 2018, 25 nations participationing, 46 surface ships, five submarines, 18 national land forces, and more than 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel in the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise scheduled June 27 to Aug. 2, in and around the Hawaiian Islands and Southern California, no RN ships participating.

Highlight is the SinkEx of the USS Racine a 8,800t FLD LST, enlightening video below of the effects of missiles and torpedoes, and the USS McClosky a 4,000t FLD FFG, no video released?

US Army Gray Eagle drone and AH-64E used to pinpoint the Racine and then targeted by four Japan Ground Self Defense Force Type 12 Surface-to-Ship Missile ground launched and a Naval Strike Missile fired from a US Army vehicle with a Palletized Load System (PLS) plus five HIMAR artillery rockets, a Harpoon missile fired by Australian P-8A, another Harpoon and a torpedo from a submarine. US Air Force launched LRASM was originally planned to be used against Racine, though appears none used.

Re. the McClusky the Singapore Navy RSS Tenacious fired two Harpoons and also two air launched against the FFG and reported that unusually these hit at the waterline (most videos show anti-ship missiles hitting superstructure or TEUs on deck), causing the ship to sink earlier than expected.


seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Is there a definitive need for ships of the Maya class and Sejong the great , includes Aegis , very large missile storage , what does this bring to the defence philosophy and should other navies consider this

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

whitelancer wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I think we're all puzzled.
To true. Frankly it seems to make no sense what so ever.

Another puzzling feature, if you look at the videos of the test firings you will see that the head of the "mushrooms" is absent from the launch tubes used. Does this mean that when missiles are present that they aren't fitted (in which case why are they depicted in all the CGI images of T26 and T31?) or are they just removed before firing, in which case how are they removed? As they appear to be bolted on I can't imagine some poor sailor having to remove them with a spanner, yet their seems no other way of doing it! Its all very baffling.
There's an article by Richard Scott in the current edition of Warship World which sheds a bit of light on this. It's a good read giving a potted history of Sea Ceptor.

Anyhow, yes to save money, the Sea Ceptor launch tube was inserted at a slight angle into existing Sea Wolf silos. Ceptor is a tad longer missile so the "top hat" or "mushroom stem" had to be added. If that extension is not visible then that silo does not contain a Ceptor launcher.

Sea Wolf silo's were basically hung from the top. Ceptor's are the other way round i.e. supported from below in order to take the recoil of the soft launch. That meant strengthening beams had to be added beneath.

No mention of why the odd design is being carried forward to both the Type 31 and Type 26. Hopefully, it won't.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

seaspear wrote:Is there a definitive need for ships of the Maya class and Sejong the great , includes Aegis , very large missile storage , what does this bring to the defence philosophy and should other navies consider this
Their were many in the RN that wanted AEGIS for the Type 45s instead of PAAMS. Would certainly have helped joint ops with many other navies. Probably would have meant CEC and BMDS by now. But the euro loving UK politicians decided otherwise.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:Not mention of why the odd design is being carried forward to both the Type 31 and Type 26. Hopefully, it won't.
:thumbup:

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:Their were many in the RN that wanted AEGIS for the Type 45s instead of PAAMS. Would certainly have helped joint ops with many other navies. Probably would have meant CEC and BMDS by now. But the euro loving UK politicians decided otherwise.
:thumbdown:

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Something to consider with the Sejong the great and Maya classes are their respective load out of VLS of 128 and 96 respectively , is this a more realistic requirement for a high threat scenario than European ships

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

Ron5 wrote:
Their were many in the RN that wanted AEGIS for the Type 45s instead of PAAMS. Would certainly have helped joint ops with many other navies. Probably would have meant CEC and BMDS by now. But the euro loving UK politicians decided otherwise.
There were more that didn't. And with good reason.

So it wasn't just (or even primarily) the euro loving politicians

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Enigmatically wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Their were many in the RN that wanted AEGIS for the Type 45s instead of PAAMS. Would certainly have helped joint ops with many other navies. Probably would have meant CEC and BMDS by now. But the euro loving UK politicians decided otherwise.
There were more that didn't. And with good reason.

So it wasn't just (or even primarily) the euro loving politicians
Care to elaborate, be very interesting to hear your views.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Enigmatically wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Their were many in the RN that wanted AEGIS for the Type 45s instead of PAAMS. Would certainly have helped joint ops with many other navies. Probably would have meant CEC and BMDS by now. But the euro loving UK politicians decided otherwise.
There were more that didn't. And with good reason.

So it wasn't just (or even primarily) the euro loving politicians
Maybe rightly too, there's more than one account that places the Type 45's ahead in capability of the AEGIS AB's at AAW.

However, I'm betting that AB/AEGIS will get better faster. And that an RN with AEGIS could work better with an RAN AEGIS or US AEGIS.

Post Reply